The Understanding persistent Pain Where it ResiDes study of low back pain cohort profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite chronic low back pain (LBP) being considered a biopsychosocial condition for diagnosis and management, few studies have investigated neurobiological risk factors thought to underpin the transition from acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this research is to describe the methodology, compare baseline characteristics between acute LBP participants and pain-free controls, and compare LBP participants with or without completed follow-up. One hundred and twenty individuals experiencing acute LBP and 57 pain-free controls were recruited to participate in the Understanding persistent Pain Where it ResiDes (UPWaRD) study. Neurobiological, psychological, and sociodemographic data were collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. Ninety-five participants (79%) provided outcome data at 3-month follow-up and 96 participants (80%) at 6 months. Compared to controls, LBP participants in the UPWaRD cohort were older, had a higher BMI, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and higher medication usage. Higher depression, anxiety and stress, lower pain self-efficacy, and higher pain catastrophising during acute LBP were correlated with higher 6-month pain and disability. This cohort provides novel and significant opportunities to increase understanding of neurobiological risk factors of LBP. Future findings endeavour to provide new targets for treatment and prevention of chronic LBP. Additional priorities include exploring epigenetic and proteomic biomarkers of poor LBP outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".